India e Brasil: unidos no protecionismo e no mercantilismo: fora do RCEP economia da India vai diminuir no mundo

 A Índia e o Brasil sempre foram parceiras na rejeição de todas as propostas de abertura comercial feitas ao longo dos anos no Gatt e na OMC, e sempre lideraram os outros países em desenvolvimento para se oporem a quaisquer medidas de liberalização comercial ou de investimentos, sendo ainda ferozmente opostos à inclusão de serviços, de investimentos e de propriedade intelectual no sistema multilateral de comércio. Tanta obsessão no "anti-comercialismo" – como diria nosso patético chanceler – tem um preço: a despeito de serem ambas grandes economias – pelo tamanho do país e da população – são anões comerciais, com uma participação medíocre nos grandes fluxos. Isso apesar de que é o setor externo que garante boa parte do crescimento nas duas economias.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

India’s rejection of RCEP and free trade will make it poorer and less relevant

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership was an opportunity to recapture India’s success through economic liberalization. India now finds itself isolated and has compromised its influence in a region where economic integration has become a top priority for most countries

Mohamed Zeeshan

South China Morning Post, Hong Kong – 24.11.2020

 

A day after the  Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnershipm(RCEP) agreement was concluded in India’s absence, Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar launched a scathing attack on trade and globalisation.

“In the name of openness, we have allowed subsidised products and unfair production advantages from abroad to prevail,” he said, asserting that the Indian government had decided to move away from trading arrangements in pursuit of an Atmanirbhar Bharat, or self-reliant India.

“The effect of past trade agreements has been to deindustrialise some sectors,” he said. “The consequences of future ones would lock us into global commitments, many of them not to our advantage.”

Some people might see Jaishankar’s comments as a jibe at China. Indians often complain that the Chinese unfairly subsidise domestic production and then dump their products in the Indian market. Indians also argue that, while China is able to dump its manufactured goods in India, Indian exports in the pharmaceutical and information technology sectors are subject to crippling restrictions by China.

India’s allergy to trade – and the foreign minister’s comments – goes far beyond China, though. For several years, India has struggled to agree on trade liberalisation with myriad partners, from Australia to the European Union and even Sri Lanka. Between 2016 and 2020, India introduced the second-highest number of trade restrictions among all Group of 20 economies, according to the Global Trade Alert database.

Despite its obvious geopolitical value, India was kept out of the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. This was in large part because none of the participating countries believed India would agree to its terms.

As a result, despite being the world’s fifth-largest economy, India is not even among the world’s top 10 trading powers. This is all the more bizarre when one realises that trade was a large part of India’s post-liberalisation growth burst in the 1990s.

In 1988, India’s trade accounted for about 13.5 per cent of its GDP and, 10 years later, it was as much as 24 per cent. Service trade more than doubled as a percentage of GDP and, not surprisingly, India’s real GDP increased by nearly 70 per cent in those 10 years.

This was in stark contrast to the dawdling economic progress made under its protectionist import substitution policies through the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1960s, India’s real GDP only increased by about 40 per cent in 10 years. In the following decade, it rose by a little over a quarter.

India needs to pick up the mantle from its days of economic liberalisation once again. Notwithstanding concerns over Chinese imports, the RCEP was a great opportunity to do just that. Despite its size and complexity, the RCEP is, in many ways, a relatively unambitious trade deal.

By one estimate quoted in The Economist, the deal eliminates about 90 per cent of tariffs but only across a period of 20 years after coming into effect. It hardly touches agriculture – one of India’s key political concerns, which drives protectionism. As The Economist pointed out, Japan will maintain high import duties on some “politically sensitive” agricultural products such as rice, wheat, dairy and sugar.

The fact India was not sufficiently confident about its domestic economy to sign up to even such an unambitious deal is worrying and will send the wrong signals to foreign investors.

Worse, Jaishankar’s caustic tirade is likely to undermine India’s already floundering trade negotiations with the rest of the world. Indian diplomats are, for instance, working hard to convince the European Union of New Delhi’s commitment to more openness.

India’s antitrade posture will also have geopolitical costs. Membership in the RCEP would have given India the opportunity to be a balancing power against Chinese hegemony in Asia. Its participation would have been particularly crucial at a time when the United States has been withdrawing from the region, and countries, especially in Southeast Asia, were looking for diverse partnerships.

For these reasons, nations such as Japan were strong advocates for India’s inclusion in the RCEP, even after New Delhi walked out of discussions last year. Now, however, India finds itself isolated and has significantly compromised its influence in a region where economic integration has become a top priority for most.

The RCEP comes amid heightened tensions between China and its neighbours. Yet, the fact that Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asian nations have all been willing to put political troubles aside for the sake of economic ties shows Asia is strongly committed to globalisation.

Meanwhile, even relative to the US, India might now find its antitrade posture out of resonance. As part of his renewed outreach in the Asia-Pacific, US President-elect Joe Biden is likely to consider rejoining the TPP – a deal he championed as vice-president in the Obama administration.

Trade and globalisation are key interests among Asia-Pacific nations. If New Delhi aspires for regional leadership and influence, it has to recognise this and present itself as a willing partner in region-wide economic integration. If it isolates itself through protectionist rhetoric under the guise of self-reliance, it is likely to pay a heavy economic price and will render itself less relevant in Asian geopolitics.

 

Mohamed Zeeshan is editor-in-chief of Freedom Gazette. He has previously worked at the United Nations and his first book, “Flying Blind: India’s Quest for Global Leadership”, will be out soon.

China: reformas liberais que favorecem seu desenvolvimento politico - Jorge Malena

An Appraisal of Three Liberal Contributions to Political Reform in China

09/06/2016

Jorge Malena is Director, Contemporary China Studies (USal).
Senior lecturer, Chinese domestic politics and foreign policy (USal).
Senior lecturer, Argentine Foreign Service Institute.
Counselor member, Argentine Council for International Relations

The debates on the future of China’s political system have faded in the West since the early 2010s, perhaps due to the lack of signs of openness at sight. However, the various representations/images of the future flowing within the Chinese educated rank (in government, think tanks and universities), contribute to understand current policy making and what the “yet to come” might hold.In the light of the role played by educated cadres in both shaping and reflecting the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) policy agendas, examining these images can be valuable to calculate what the political trend is likely to become. This paper’s main premise is that what elites perceive about the PRC’s path in politics will correlate considerably with what such path eventually becomes.The following analysis will touch upon the scholarly production of three selected intellectuals, whose approach to the study of politics –even though they do not stick to the Party line- enjoy a considerable degree of recognition in the PRC elite, given their regular access to publishing in the Chinese establishment press.In the final remarks, a few considerations will be presented on the possible outcome of the ongoing thrust towards modern governance.

• An Appraisal of Three Liberal Contributions to Political Reform in China (pdf, 289,08 kb)
• http://www.politica-china.org/imxd/noticias/doc/1465455189art_Malena.pdf

Alemanha: liberalizacao e milagre economico do pos-guerra - Luiz Guilherme Medeiros

Alemanha no pós-guerra: liberalização econômica, milagre de crescimento
Luiz Guilherme Medeiros  
15 de Janeiro de 2015

O fim da Segunda Guerra Mundial trouxe mais do que a libertação da Europa das garras de Hitler: ela criou o cenário para que o povo alemão se livrasse das correntes impostas pelo Estado nacional-socialista sobre a produção do seu trabalho.

Pesadas regulações, controle de preços, quotas de produção, tabelamento de salários, racionamento de comida e planejamento centralizado eram algumas das medidas que tornavam o Terceiro Reich similar à União Soviética no que concerne ao funcionamento da economia. [1]

Os Aliados que ocuparam o território alemão perpetuaram o modelo nazista, acreditando que o racionamento de comida impedia uma crise de fome.

Tais controles não aplacavam as necessidades da população, que ignorava as restrições ao comércio monetizado e faziam trocas sob um rudimentar sistema de escambo, oferecendo objetos em troca de itens que precisavam, como comida.

A consequência foi uma imensa queda de produtividade em relação ao período antes da guerra. [2]

Havia, contudo, economistas alemães que questionavam corajosamente tais manipulações governamentais autoritárias mesmo durante o auge do poder nazista: os ordoliberais.

Ludwig Erhard, membro desta escola de pensamento, acabaria sendo nomeado Ministro das Finanças da Bavária em 1945, dado que os Aliados buscavam veementes anti-nazistas para a composição do novo governo.

A medida que Erhard foi subindo na hierarquia, realizou a de-nazificação e liberalização da economia: fim do controle de preços, fim do racionamento de comida, redução e padronização da carga tributária para as empresas alemãs, redução do imposto sobre a renda dos alemães, elevação da quantia necessária para ser considerado rico (que pagava mais impostos), dentre inúmeras outras medidas que proporcionaram grande autonomia financeira para a população.

Sem as restrições governamentais, as pessoas compreendiam com clareza o que as outras demandavam, e o que precisariam produzir para atender suas próprias necessidades e desejos. O mercado e o sistema de preços pautavam então o que seria produzido.

O resultado foi o Wirtschaftswunder, o milagre econômico alemão.
As reformas ordoliberais trouxeram um mecanismo efetivo para o combate à pobreza do pós-guerra, bem como uma independência econômica que o cidadão alemão simplesmente nunca havia experimentado.

O resultado foi um aumento drástico na produtividade da Alemanha Ocidental a partir de junho de 1948, com o país retendo uma taxa de crescimento acima da média mundial por décadas a fio. [3]

O Plano Marshall, tão citado na recuperação alemã, na realidade teve pouca participação na sua rota para a prosperidade. Não apenas a ajuda financeira era pequena em relação ao PIB, como nem toda nação que recebeu o auxílio teve o mesmo sucesso que a Alemanha [4].
Outras, como a Bélgica, utilizaram a liberdade econômica para se recuperar da miséria gerada pela guerra antes mesmo do Plano Marshall ser implementado em qualquer parte da Europa.

A história alemã é mais um exemplo de que o planejamento central não atende aos interesses da população, mas do Estado. Seja pelos megalomaníacos objetivos nazistas ou as bem-intencionadas causas dos militares Aliados, o controle burocrático prestava um desserviço à estabilidade e ao enriquecimento do cidadão alemão.

A interdependência gerada pelo livre-comércio e os incentivos do mercado para que as necessidades populares sejam atendidas são qualidades fundamentais que as ideias liberais possuem para proporcionar um convívio benéfico entre todos que integram a sociedade.

#MaisLiberdadeMenosEstado

[1] http://www.mises.org.br/Article.aspx?id=98
[2] http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GermanEconomicMiracle.html
[3] http://www.mises.org.br/Article.aspx?id=1419
[4] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/look-behind-marshall-plan-mythology

China reduz papel do Estado e fortalece setor privado: o que vao dizer os companheiros?

Os companheiros, que são muito néscios nessas matérias econômicas, costumam citar a China como exemplo de economia de sucesso que combina um grande papel do Estado, como força diretora e propulsora da economia como um todo, embora a China seja, sob vários aspectos, mais capitalista do que o Brasil, e bem mais aberta.
Agora eles correm o risco de ficar órfãos nas suas recomendações de política econômica.
Que pena...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

The New York Times, May 24, 2013

China Plans to Reduce the State’s Role in the Economy

By DAVID BARBOZA and CHRIS BUCKLEY

SHANGHAI — The Chinese government is planning for private businesses and market forces to play a larger role in its economy, in a major policy shift intended to improve living conditions for the middle class and to make China an even stronger competitor on the global stage.

In a speech to party cadres containing some of the boldest pro-market rhetoric they have heard in more than a decade, the country’s new prime minister, Li Keqiang, said this month that the central government would reduce the state’s role in economic matters in the hope of unleashing the creative energies of a nation with the world’s second-largest economy after that of the United States.

On Friday, the Chinese government issued a set of policy proposals that seemed to show that Mr. Li and other leaders were serious about reducing government intervention in the marketplace and giving competition among private businesses a bigger role in investment decisions and setting prices. Whether Beijing can restructure an economy that is thoroughly addicted to state credit and government directives is unclear. But analysts see such announcements as the strongest signs yet that top policy makers are serious about revamping the nation’s growth model.

“This is radical stuff, really,” said Stephen Green, an economist at the British bank Standard Chartered and an expert on the Chinese economy. “People have talked about this for a long time, but now we’re getting a clearly spoken reform agenda from the top.”

China’s leaders are under greater pressure to change as growth slows and the limitations of its state-led, investment-driven economy are becoming more evident. This month, manufacturing activity contracted for the first time in seven months, according to an independent survey by HSBC. Economists are lowering their growth forecasts and weighing the risks associated with high levels of corporate and government debt that have built up over the last five years.

“There are quite a number of messages coming from these new leaders,” said Huang Yiping, chief economist for emerging Asia at the British bank Barclays. “They realize that if we continue to delay reforms, the economy could be in deep trouble.”

The broad proposals include expanding a tax on natural resources, taking gradual steps to allow market forces to determine bank interest rates and developing policies to “promote the effective entry of private capital into finance, energy, railways, telecommunications and other spheres,” according to a directive issued on the government’s Web site. “All of society is ardently awaiting new breakthroughs in reform,” the directive said.

Foreign investors will be given more opportunities to invest in finance, logistics, health care and other sectors. For years, Western governments, banks and companies have complained that the China government has impeded foreign investment in banking and other service industries, despite promising to open up. The latest directive, however, did not give details about the specific changes to foreign investment rules that policy makers in Beijing have in mind.

China’s leaders are also promising to loosen foreign exchange controls, changes that are likely to reduce price distortions in the economy and allow the market to determine the value of the Chinese currency, the renminbi. On Friday, the central bank, the People’s Bank of China, issued a statement that repeated such vows.

The push does not signal the end of big government in China. The Communist Party, experts say, is unlikely to abandon the state capitalist model, break up huge, state-run oligopolies or privatize major sectors of the economy that the party considers strategic, like banking, energy and telecommunications.

Beijing seems to be pressing ahead because it has few alternatives. The economy has slowed this year because of fewer exports to Europe and the United States and slower investment growth. Rising labor costs and a strengthening currency have also reduced manufacturing competitiveness.

China’s leaders, including a group of pro-market bureaucrats who seem to have gained in the leadership shuffle this year, seem to think that more government spending could worsen economic conditions and that the private sector needs to step in.

China is also facing significant changes in its demographics and drivers of economic growth. The population is rapidly aging, and the number of young people entering the work force has begun to decline. Those shifts are forcing China to upgrade its industrial operations and compete using something other than inexpensive goods and low-cost labor, analysts say.

Nicholas R. Lardy, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and an authority on the Chinese economy, said government controls on interest rates, the exchange rate and the price of energy had resulted in a huge misallocation of capital and unbalanced growth. “These reforms would raise household income and reduce savings, providing a double-barreled boost to private consumption,” Mr. Lardy said.

To succeed, China’s leaders will have to fend off powerful interest groups, as well as corrupt officials who have grown accustomed to using their political power to enrich themselves and their families through bribes and secret stakes in companies.

The previous administration, led by President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, also promised to deepen economic overhauls and strengthen the private sector. But analysts say they lacked the political clout needed to succeed. During their two five-year terms, the state’s role in the economy actually expanded.

The new leaders, who took office in March after a once-in-a-decade leadership transition, seem more determined to change course. In his speech this month, delivered to party officials nationwide by teleconference, Mr. Li, the prime minister, said, “If we place excessive reliance on government steering and policy leverage to stimulate growth, that will be difficult to sustain and could even produce new problems and risks.”

“The market is the creator of social wealth and the wellspring of self-sustaining economic development,” he said.

He spoke of deregulation and slimming down the role of government.

“Li Keqiang thinks like an economist,” said Barry J. Naughton, a professor of Chinese economy at the University of California, San Diego. “He wants the government to get out of the way.”

Chris Buckley reported from Hong Kong.